[Nil]

I see your position. But I could still argue the good done by brilliant scientists outweighs the bad done by Hitler. I do not believe this type of argument is just though, because no matter what, a human should not be murdered.

I would never negatively rep a person for being "Pro-Choice", but I will stand up and punish someone for having a wicked, twisted, disgusting "humor":

I think it's interesting to note how quick you are to defend the unborn fetuses because of the value you've put on human life, but then go on and say you can argue that scientific progress outweighs the millions of human lives Hitler's reign killed.

But I don't believe that is my argument regardless. I was merely acknowledging it to show that the argument can equally sway both ways.

While you stand by saying a human should not be murdered, I stand in saying that people should have the rights to their own body, not the government. This "human" during the early ages of pregnancy isn't sentient and is only survivable by the mother's nourishment. I believe the host should be able to make the decision within her own body. And if we are to define life, biologically speaking:

- with an organized structure performing a specific function
- with an ability to sustain existence, e.g. by nourishment
- with an ability to respond to stimuli or to its environment
- capable of adapting
- with an ability to germinate or reproduce

I don't believe I could argue that an abortion qualifies as the murder of a human life.
But to be morally fair, it'd be reasonable to state a certain moment that abortions should be illegal. That is, not all of the bullet points must be met, but that the fetus shouldn't be able to feel and process pain and other stimuli. But that could be another debate and that is really just to come to a compromise between the two.

[DarkMuse]

Here's my opinion:

I am pro-choice. The science behind pregnancy right now is limited and thus the common argument of killing a "living being" is muddied. It really comes down to how YOU define a "living, conscious being." It is the soul decision of the mother AND the father whether or not they want to abort before the current stage that we know of where the baby is conscious and/or can feel pain. The child is unborn and COULD have a number of birth defects, disorders etc or it could be just fine. Because of this, we cannot compare aborting the unborn child to killing potential as it could be positive or negative. Pro-Life supporters generally believe that abortion is equivalent to murdering a child. However, a child had already been born. It feels pain, is conscious and has already begun to shape the world no matter how small. There is a time before the stage that I mentioned earlier where the fetus does not feel pain as it does not have the capacity. At that point in time, it is no different than cutting the grass (I know this sounds inhuman but it is the facts.) The fetus is a mass of cells, no more, no less. It does have the opportunity to become life but that is up to the parents. They are the creators of that probability. Therefore, it is there responsibility to choose which possibility they believe in. That is why I believe that we should all be Pro-Choice.

Please let me know (respectfully) if you disagree and I will (respectfully) give you a rebuttal.

[m0dem]

I think it's interesting to note how quick you are to defend the unborn fetuses because of the value you've put on human life, but then go on and argue that scientific progress outweighs the millions of human lives Hitler's reign killed.

But I don't believe that is my argument regardless. I was merely acknowledging it to show that the argument can equally sway both ways.

While you stand by saying a human should not be murdered, I stand in saying that people should have the rights to their own body, not the government. This "human" during the early ages of pregnancy isn't sentient and is only survivable by the mother's nourishment. I believe the host should be able to make the decision within her own body. And if we are to define life, biologically speaking:

- with an organized structure performing a specific function
- with an ability to sustain existence, e.g. by nourishment
- with an ability to respond to stimuli or to its environment
- capable of adapting
- with an ability to germinate or reproduce

I don't believe I could argue that an abortion qualifies as the murder of a human life.
But to be morally fair, it'd be reasonable to state a certain moment that abortions should be illegal. That is, not all of the bullet points must be met, but that the fetus shouldn't be able to feel and process pain and other stimuli. But that could be another debate and that is really just to come to a compromise between the two.

I am not stating that scientific progress has outweighted Hitler's murders. Please, read my post again...

I see your position. But I could still argue the good done by brilliant scientists outweighs the bad done by Hitler. I do not believe this type of argument is just though, because no matter what, a human should not be murdered.

Every living organism relies on another to survive. But that does not mean they are not living...
Even a baby, outside of the womb (who is a living organism and human being) could not survive without it's mother.

[Nil]

I am not stating that scientific progress has outweighted Hitler's murders. Please, read my post again...


Every living organism relies on another to survive. But that does not mean they are not living...
Even a baby, outside of the womb (who is a living organism and human being) could not survive without it's mother.

Sorry, I should restate that you said you could possibly argue that position. Which I think would by hypocritical to attempt to do so.

Also, you are picking one point of my argument to destroy the rest. Let's not forget in that same line I used the word "and". Not sentient AND not survivable on it's own.

[Dismas]

I'm all against murder, but I believe everyone should have the freedom to choose when it comes to spawning new life.

[Megan]

I'm pro choice, if the mother is likely to die to give birth to the baby or the baby is a product of rape then the mother should be allowed to choose.

Before anyone says "very few pregnancy resulting rapes happen becoz da rapist dunt want 2 lev evidence" - most rapes are committed by a person the victim already knows and so it will go unreported, especially if it is a spouse.

[Panther_]

I am pro-life bar if the mothers life (including serious injury) is in risk. Irreverent of any other situation no human deserves to die having done nothing wrong. Even if the child is the product of rape it does not deserve to have it's life stamped out purely because it would inconvenience the mother for a short while.

[m0dem]

Sorry, I should restate that you said you could possibly argue that position. Which I think would by hypocritical to attempt to do so.

Also, you are picking one point of my argument to destroy the rest. Let's not forget in that same line I used the word "and". Not sentient AND not survivable on it's own.

You're a good user; so there's no reason fight about it with you.
btw: Your arguments had excellent presentation.

---

I'm all against murder, but I believe everyone should have the freedom to choose when it comes to spawning new life.

What do you mean by "spawning new life"?
Does that mean conception or birth?

[pvnk]

How many times have people confused political correctness with the actual controversy?

Which one of you is not pro-life? You are not for life?
Which one of you is not pro-choice? You're not for the freedom of being able to make your own choices?

It's pro-abortion or anti-abortion and that's just the first part of the matter.

Let's address this braindead individual's post.

http://i.imgur.com/RibMbwq.png

Murder is illegal is his argument. Who's talking about murder? Abortion is abortion. Abortion =/= murder. I noticed that you have a quote in your signature. It makes me wonder if the person you quoted was talking about you. Intelligence seems to be a product of nature that has excluded from your birth.

---

I'm pro choice, if the mother is likely to die to give birth to the baby or the baby is a product of rape then the mother should be allowed to choose.

Before anyone says "very few pregnancy resulting rapes happen becoz da rapist dunt want 2 lev evidence" - most rapes are committed by a person the victim already knows and so it will go unreported, especially if it is a spouse.

Are you going to argue statistics? Not every rape is a statistic.

Furthermore, rape is not the only counterargument to be "pro-abortion" as you seem to have argued it. You are conditionally limiting the circumstance of being "pro-choice" as you limit the "choice" aspect of abortion.

[Nil]

How many times have people confused political correctness with the actual controversy?

Which one of you is not pro-life? You are not for life?
Which one of you is not pro-choice? You're not for the freedom of being able to make your own choices?

It's pro-abortion or anti-abortion and that's just the first part of the matter.

I think it's a universal understanding what is inferred when speaking about pro-life and pro-choice that arguing semantics in these cases is just wasted bandwidth. I'll keep it in mind regardless for a more technical environment where explicitly stated terms are more important.